Manufacturing Execution System (MES)

An Examination of Implementation Strategy

A Thesis

presented to

the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University,

San Luis Obispo

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Industrial Engineering

by

Riley Elliott

June 2013

ii

© 2013

Riley Elliott

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

TITLE: Manufacturing Execution System (MES) Examination of Implementation Strategy AUTHOR(S): Riley Elliott

DATE SUMBITTED: June 2013 COMMITTEE CHAIR: Reza Pouraghabagher, Ph.D. Professor, IME COMMITTEE MEMBER: Roya Javadpour, Ph.D. Professor, IME COMMITTEE MEMBER: Lizabeth Schlemer, Ph.D. Professor, IME

iv

ABSTRACT

Manufacturing Execution System (MES) Examination of Implementation Strategy

Riley Elliott

The priorities of executing the manufacturing orders generated by an MRP

system are often in operational conflicts with the dynamics of the manufacturing

floor. It is not uncommon for a given manufacturing order to reach the shop floor

several weeks or longer after being “opened” by an MRP system where it may

face a chaotic case of large queues, machine down-time, parts shortage, scrap

problems and other resource management constraints. Many companies have

resorted to the Manufacturing Execution System (MES) software solution to

resolve these problems. This method first gained popularity in mid-90’s within

the semiconductor industry. An MES approach is an on-line, real-time data

gathering, analysis and storage to assist in short-interval scheduling (shift or day)

manufacturing operations with an emphasis on revising scheduling priorities. It is

essentially an information system tool for the shop floor and if designed properly,

it may be used as an advisory system for effective decision-making. However, in

implementation MES faces several challenges including the proper software

platform/architecture, integration within ERP or a stand-alone best-of-breed,

amount and type of data/information to be exchanged with the MRP engine, and

a user-centered interface for various layers of decision making. This paper will

provide a detailed background on various technical, software, and organizational

factors that the use of an MES implementation may impose upon the practitioner.

Furthermore, and as a case study, it will discuss a systematic implementation

strategy for MES at a high-tech company in California. The discussion of the

critical success factors in implementation planning will hopefully be of value to

both practitioners and researchers in similar projects.

v

Table of Contents

List of Figures ..................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1 - Introduction ....................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 - Review of Literature .......................................................................... 2

2.1 The Beginnings of MES....................................................................... 2

2.2 Functionality ........................................................................................ 3

2.3 Deficiencies and Future of MES .......................................................... 6

2.4 Integration with ERP, APS, MRP ........................................................ 9

2.5 System Architecture of MES ............................................................. 13

2.6 Current Out of Box (OOB) MES ........................................................ 15

2.7 Cost/Reward of MES ......................................................................... 16

Chapter 3 - Thesis Work and Validation ............................................................ 18

Chapter 4 - MES as a System ........................................................................... 20

4.1 General Concepts ............................................................................. 20

4.2 Premises ........................................................................................... 21

4.3 Inputs ................................................................................................ 22

4.4 Adapting the Manufacturing Environment ......................................... 26

Chapter 5 – Systematic Planning Approach to MES Implementation ................ 27

5.1 Stage 1 - MES Explored .................................................................... 31

5.2 Stage 2 - MES Project Feasibility ...................................................... 31

5.3 Stage 3 - Project Analysis ................................................................. 32

5.4 Stage 4 - Decision Strategies ............................................................ 33

5.5 Stage 5 - Choosing a Vendor ............................................................ 34

5.6 Stage 6 - Statement of Work (SOW) ................................................. 35

5.7 Stage 7 - Gap Analysis ..................................................................... 36

5.8 Stage 8 - System Architecture .......................................................... 37

5.9 Stage 9 - Pilot Program ..................................................................... 38

5.10 Stage 10 - Implementation .............................................................. 39

5.11 Stage 11 - Test Prototype MES ...................................................... 44

5.12 Stage 12 - Verification and Validation ............................................. 45

vi

5.13 Stage 13 - Full Scale Implementation ............................................. 46

5.14 Stage 14 - Monitor and Maintain ..................................................... 47

Chapter 6 – Case Study .................................................................................... 48

6.1 MES Metrics ...................................................................................... 50

Chapter 7 – Conclusion ..................................................................................... 52

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 53

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Two-tier MES architecture ………………………………………… 8

Figure 2: MES and other modules………………………………………..… 10

Figure 3: MES Planning and Control Inputs …………………………..….. 22

Figure 4: V-Model of Systems Engineering……………………………..… 30

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Manufacturing Execution Systems solve many issues plaguing the

manufacturing environment. Benefits are numerous and only accomplished

through the provision and collection of data in real-time. Recent advances in

computing technology and data management have paved the landscape for the

growth of MES. In a highly competitive market, advantages provided by MES

systems have spurred the adoption of the software over the past two decades.

MES provides improved visibility, integration, resource management, as

well as document and product control, which ultimately deliver higher throughput

and quality. Such benefits position the adopting company in a strong and

competitive position, and as such continue to provoke the rapid adoption of MES.

“The MES market was estimated to be worth $4.7 billion in 2011 and to reach

$8.9 billion by 2016 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.6% from

2011 to 2016.” (“Manufacturing Execution System (MES) Market,” 2012) As

seen, the demand for MES systems continues to grow. To provide for this

adoption rate, a systematic method of planning and control for successful

implementation must be accurately described and available to all companies

large or small.

How does a company move its existing manufacturing environment to

interface with MES and control the various stages of the implementation

process? The lack of information surrounding this issue has prolonged the

integration of MES into the average small to medium sized company’s

manufacturing environment. To address this issue, not just MES must be

understood, but also all other factors that influence the implementation. These

factors range from type and architecture of software/hardware, to people and

machines involved, to the specifics of reporting and functionality desired. All will

be carefully organized and discussed with an ultimate goal of categorizing and

synthesizing the requirements of MES implementation to provide a systematic

implementation strategy. This planning tool will provide concise entry and exit

criteria for 14 stages of implementation.

2

Chapter 2 - Review of Literature Numerous articles and books were examined in the formation of a strong

knowledge basis for this thesis. Searches throughout the academic field using

strings such as “Application of Manufacturing Execution System,” “Future of

Manufacturing Execution System,” “MES Case Study,” “Integration of MES”

among others brought more than forty articles and three books with current and

applicable information to be synthesized. The amalgamation of this information

offers a thorough understanding of the field, and validity to this thesis.

2.1 The Beginnings of MES The term Manufacturing Execution System (MES) was first coined in the

early 1990’s. At its focal point, this system attempts to offer the best shop floor

control and visibility through real time data collection and analysis. The core

strength of MES lies in the interface between the factory floor and management.

“MES emphasizes the information transfer between the production layer and the

business layer and optimizes the production process of the whole enterprise

through the information integration.” (Bo, Zhenghang, & Ying, 2004, p. 157) This

real time conveyance of information provides management with up to date

information with which to make fully informed decisions. To examine the full

utility of MES an associated enterprise resource planning (ERP) system must be

assumed. In short, this ERP system enables interaction of MES with other

functions within the company, and completes the allocation of information to a

company wide audience. The quality of implementation and thorough integration

of MES dictates the level of functionality to be achieved.

3

2.2 Functionality

The functionalities of a fully implemented MES offer a strong competitive

advantage. The concept of MES as an information management system proves

the easiest to comprehend. A clear understanding of the functionalities offered

by a complete MES provide for easy identification of its numerous benefits.

Manufacturing Enterprise Solutions Association (MESA) International an

association representing professionals working surrounding manufacturing

execution systems, defines eleven specific MES functionalities.

First of these functions is the management of resources. MES provides

the ability to control machines, labor skills, materials, and documents among

other resources necessary for an operation to be performed. History of

resources, current setup, availability, and other critical information is

simultaneously available to the technician on the shop floor and the manager.

The control of this information provides for real time status updates and process

control.

Scheduling of work orders is the second function of MES. Sequencing of

work based on priority, attributes, and resource requirements seeks to minimize

setup time and maximize flow through the production system. An accurate

calculation of time spent is compiled from each independent operation even with

the added complexity of overlapping or parallel operations. The scheduling

feature of MES also provides for level loading of labor and equipment.

Production unit dispatch is next on the list of functions. MES operates a

real time dispatch for all production operations, carefully managing quantity and

buffer of product throughout the floor reducing work in progress (WIP). “A MES

handles factory operations. It supervises the process control systems, it decides

the routes that the products follow through the system, and it decides when and

where operations on products start.” (Valckenaers & Van Brussel, 2005, p. 428)

Due to the real time feedback loop, decisions that alter the established schedule

can be easily accounted, and production routed accordingly. MES works with all

factory production scenarios including rework or salvage.

4

One of the truest strengths of MES lies in document control. The

implementation of MES eliminates the usage of paper driven methods of

document control. This functionality provides benefits that spider throughout the

company. Every user of MES has access to the required documents. The

technician has access to all information related to the production unit including

work instructions, standard operating procedures (SOP), engineering change

orders (ECO), bill of materials (BOM), history, and other mandatory information

that before MES would have been difficult to obtain, and keep with the order in

paper form. Also, paper travelers with both production information and possible

sign off by technicians are controlled by MES electronically. This adds security

and reliability on the feedback loop from production on the manufacturing floor.

Data collection sets the bar for significance in MES. Listed as a function,

this facet provides all data related to production to the hands of management in

formats that provide valuable metrics and insight into the characteristics of the

production. “The essence of MES is to receive and collect manufacturing data

and provide real time information to the entire organization enabling timely

management decision support.” (Baljet, 1999, p. 1078) This data can be

collected either automatically from intelligent equipment or manually from human

interface forms. Metrics and red flags update automatically in this real time

feedback loop. Sent with the order through the entire manufacturing process,

this data is eventually archived for easy retrieval and historical calculations.

Sixth on the MESA list of functionalities lays labor management. Basic

function surrounds controlling employee status and attendance throughout the

workday. Upon interface with an ERP system financial costs may be assigned to

specific projects based on the employee’s logged actions. By determining the

status of the employee, value and non-value added activities could be identified

and addressed due to full understanding of the associated cost. On a higher

level, employee certification and clearance tracking as well as possible

optimization of labor are operations provided by the labor management functions

of MES.

5

MES offers real time analysis of quality. Data collected from

manufacturing operations may be synthesized and displayed in means easily

read to identify issues requiring follow up action. Smart manufacturing execution

systems offer the ability to examine historical records for similar defects

identifying root cause from previous symptoms. Fully implemented systems

include statistical process control and supplier quality control feedback loops.

Under the data collection function of MES, quality control has the ability to

perform any inspection and sign off electronically in manual input forms. The

ability to identify possible quality defects and alert in real time presents a

reduction in rework and an increase in customer satisfaction due to a more

reliable product.

Process management is a byproduct of data collection from resources,

labor and equipment. MES supervises production while adjusting for maximized

production activities either automatically or by supplying information to make an

informed decision. Production units are tracked both intra-operational, within one

operation, and inter-operational, between operations. MES will flag any

discrepancies from the as planned operations to alert management.

The ninth functionality is maintenance management. Albeit a relatively

simple task, the MES system provides means of tracking operation based

maintenance. Identified by operating hours, the scheduling of total preventative

maintenance can be integrated into the system. Immediate issues are flagged to

management’s attention. All maintenance concerns are logged in history for

reference, and to aid in diagnostics of current issues.

Product tracking and genealogy manifests itself as another collaboration

of the aforementioned data collection throughout the shop floor. As product

moves through production, status information on human and mechanical

resources as well as other identification information or feedback from actions on

the shop floor are recorded. This recorded data provides traceability and

historical information on the creation of the end product and all of its

components.

6

Ultimately, the eleventh function of MES is performance analysis.

Performance analysis completes the feedback loop to management. Information

on current production patterns is compared to historical results. Similar user

friendly and straightforward reports and visualizations present valuable metrics

including resource utilization, cycle and takt times, schedule adherence, and

quality information among other useful comparative information. “MES, the core

of the production management, has the ‘middleware’ role linking the production

layer to the enterprise management layer.” (Bo et al., 2004, p. 159) MES imparts

upper level management the clearest visualization of the actions transpiring on

the shop floor. The analyses supplied by MES clearly identify strengths and

weaknesses and aid in the never ceasing quest for continual improvement.

The strengths of MES and the discrepancy between a paper driven

system and one controlled by MES are easily apparent. Numerous companies

have implemented this system and have realized the benefits that will be covered

later in this chapter. In most manufacturing environments this standard MES is

quite sufficient, but some deficiencies are spurring the development of a new

generation of MES.

2.3 Deficiencies and Future of MES Some major issues surround the standard manufacturing execution

system. First, integration between other crucial software throughout the

company should be streamlined. Companies such as Oracle or SAP have

attempted to solve this issue by developing operating platforms for every aspect

of the company, but the specific software modules only interface well with other

Oracle or SAP software. Issues arise when best of breed software must be

integrated to work concurrently. Methods of data structure, storage and retrieval

differ between systems and so cause discrepancies between programs.

Collaboration between vendors and open source software seeking to provide

communication between differing systems has begun to combat this problem.

7

Issues also arise in application of MES to flexible manufacturing. MES

exists with a relatively rigid structure. This works well for most manufacturing

environments. When there is a high level of flexibility required on the

manufacturing floor, MES is not capable of easily adapting to this change in

process and associated data collection. MES can be configured for any

reasonable manufacturing environment, but lacks the speed of adaptation and

change in a highly flexible environment.

These deficiencies drive the future of MES. Currently emerging is a new

breed of heavily programmed MES called Reconfigurable Manufacturing

Execution System (RMES). The new systems offer simplified applications of

MES to new processes through reconstructive dimensions and implementation

designs. Complex algorithms provide a flexible framework for process objects to

be constructed and tracked. These object-oriented techniques are best

summarized by Cheng, Shen, Deng, and Nguyen (1999).

An integratable MES which is open, distributed, interoperable and collaborative is achievable. Each component of the MES Framework was developed by inheriting a proper design pattern, which is considered as the basic designs for architecture, framework messages, and interfaces of this component to interoperate and collaborate with the other components. The specific properties and implementation of the component can then be added into the component in a systematic approach. The component is integratable into the MES Framework in a plug-and-play fashion. (Cheng, Chang, Wu, 2004, p. 254)

Holonic manufacturing systems take the integration concept a bit farther.

This system’s strengths lie in the integration of the design with nature.

Employing concepts of bio-mimicry this evolved system looks to continually

forecast production in an effort to expand the myopic decision making inherent to

common MES. Holonic MES systems employ concepts modeled after food

foraging behavior in ant colonies. As part and a whole simultaneously, these

novel systems offer a foresight unattainable from standard MES.

The main coordination and control mechanisms ensure that the process plans are properly executed and emergently forecast the workload of the manufacturing resources as well as well as lead times and routings of the products. The design empowers the product instances to drive their own production; the coordination is completely decentralized. In contrast to many decentralized designs, the manufacturing execution system predicts future behavior and proactively takes measures to prevent impending

8

problems from happening. (Valckenaers & Van Brussel, 2005, p427)

A third solution attempts to add flexibility to MES. This specific application

endeavors to facilitate the use of flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) in

conjunction with MES. Such a design seeks to provide for traditional

manufacturing but adds machine and routing flexibility characteristic of highly

automated manufacturing environments. Such a design requires “A two-tier MES

architecture suitable for bridging the gap between an FMS controller and an ERP

system.” (Choi & Kim, 2002) This configuration exists as two MES running

concurrently. Operating interchangeably, reprogramming one with a new FMS

configuration will not inhibit the other. This can be seen below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Two-tier MES architecture.

9

This proves to be a complex interaction not just in programming and

implementation, but primarily in scheduling. “The schedule generated by the

main-MES is sent to the FMS-MES in the form of ‘FMS order’ to be used as

constraints when the FMS-MES is generating its ‘FMS schedule’, which is then

sent back to the main-MES. When there is a conflict in the FMS schedule, the

main-MES will generate a revised schedule, and so on (until the conflict is

resolved).” (Choi & Kim, 2002, p. 274) The biggest issue facing FMS enabled

MES is the interface with the data intensive machines and the FMS controller.

As the demand for flexible manufacturing operations continues inventive

solutions will be developed that continue to push the bounds of MES.

These novel systems all seek the clearest understanding of the current

and future operations of the factory floor. To obtain such a precise

understanding, data from all other control systems under the enterprise resource

planning system (ERP) umbrella must flawlessly interface with MES. Due to this

inherent need, the interface with other systems in the company is of utmost

importance.

2.4 Integration with ERP, APS, MRP MES cannot function as a separate unit. It depends on numerous

modules under the ERP umbrella. MES will provide for brilliant shop floor

control, but relies on data inputs from numerous areas within the company. All of

these modules fall under the master enterprise resource planning system.

The eleven functionalities described earlier define the different functions

for which data must be exchanged. These functionalities interface directly with

four other modules. As seen in Figure 2 on page 10, the four main modules that

share data with MES are Supply Chain Management, Customer Relations

Management, Production Control & Management, and Production & Process

Engineering. These analogous modules under ERP align with functions of MES,

and benefit by working in parallel with the MES system.

10

Figure 2: MES and other modules

Scheduling and production control seem to overlap the ERP modules

Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) as well as the more common

Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP or MRPII). As this presents an often

complex issue of defining barriers between systems, it is mandatory to map out

the interaction among the playing partners. In the development of the computer

software systems used in manufacturing management, MRP or MRPII systems

are mandatory for an MES system, but an MES system does not necessarily

require an APS system to provide all functionality. The better mapping of the

data flow and the desired processes of each module, the better the outcome of

the implementation and associated return on investment for the company.

MES and APS share almost identical inputs, but synthesize information for

differing purposes. “The main objective of the APS system is to improve the

production planning and scheduling to allow a certain business objective to be

achieved.”(Broner, 2004) APS seeks to fulfill difficult planning calculations based

11

off all available resources of the company. This complex task mirrors some of

the more high level planning available in most MES systems. The flow of

information between the systems provides APS with a real time understanding of

the inputs required to make the best decision such as inventory levels, current

cycle times, labor and machine availability, etc. Ideally, this information is

retrieved from the MES system in real time. Major issues arise when data must

be formatted or changed when interfacing between systems built by differing

companies. Such large amounts of information with complex structure

alterations make the process time intensive. Because of this issue most APS run

only once a day. Once the APS runs, the synthesized schedule must then be

exported back to MES. Orders must be frozen on the floor when the APS

schedules. Therefore the schedule is based off a snapshot of the shop floor

instead of real time information. Rapid data transfer showcases the strength of

the MES/APS integration. Strong integration provides for high levels of

responsiveness within the systems’ rescheduling when a change is required in

the existing production schedule.

MRPII benefits greatly from a fully implemented MES. Most companies

looking to implement a MES already have well-established MRPII systems.

Although MRPII systems provide a phenomenal planning discipline that combats

classic reactionary management culture, they lack the feedback and knowledge

of actual execution. The three core functions of MRPII systems, product

definition, material control, and material planning serve to develop ideal

schedules. MESA International stated in 1997, “Where MRPII has fallen short is

in the development of a realistic schedule for the shop tied to a factory

communication and tracking network. Dispatch lists produced by MRPII systems

are rarely followed” (Functionalities, 1997). MES seeks to alleviate this issue

with data collect and real time feedback.

MRPII and MES work as a team. MPRII plans and MES executes. This

collaboration requires a circular information flow between both segments. The

most important information that the MRPII systems provide to the manufacturing

environment and MES are forecasting and demand requirements, bill of material

12

(BOM) structures, resource levels, routing requirements, and standard operating

procedures (SOP). This information flows from MRPII to MES. MES employs

this grouping of information to properly execute the required demand.

Throughout the manufacturing process MES collects vital information, which it

then passes back to MRPII. The principal data that flows from MES to MRPII are

actual start/end times, actual resource/labor usage, true routing processes,

genealogy and serialization, and actual build configuration and BOM structure.

This information flow between entities provides for a continual improvement of

forecasting by MRPII.

Manufacturing execution systems define the communication between

manufacturing planning systems (MRP, MRPII, ERP, etc.) and the shop floor

control systems used to moderate production. Before MES this gap in

knowledge was bridged by numerous people and countless paper documents

that lead to great inaccuracies. Data collected in the manufacturing environment

was never current or fully accurate. The sheer quantity of data available was

difficult if not impossible to amass and never fully comprehensive. A MES

system provides a complete solution to this archaic methodology of production

execution.

The data collected from MES and transferred to MRPII provides MRPII

with an evaluation of the forecast. The analysis of ‘actuals’ or what really

happened is used to develop accurate and realistic process models, completion

times, lead times as well as to identify precise capacity. The process will then

repeat with more accurate information embodying the sense of continual

improvement.

Well-implemented MES, APS and MRPII systems that collaboratively seek

to forecast, schedule, and execute in the manufacturing environment provide for

excellent manufacturing operations. Reduced cycle times and work in process

(WIP) coupled with increased time in value adding activities, maximizes return on

assets as well as improves productivity and customer satisfaction. With

successful implementation a new or strengthened competitive advantage will

emerge, and continued benefits throughout the company will be realized.

13

2.5 System Architecture of MES

Due to the incredible array of possible applications, MES system

architecture varies dramatically. Systems range from a single computer within a

department to many computers across departments across plants in numerous

countries. No matter the structure and depth of the system the core functionality

remains the same. To provide for this functionality, MES embodies on-line

transaction processing (OLTP). This system design provides for immediate data

transfer and availability. Fast response times in a highly automated system

where data is continuously created and updated describe MES and OLTP. With

OLTP multiple users can access data simultaneously.

The size of the manufacturing environment and associated number of data

collection points proves one of the strongest constraints on system architecture.

When numerous workstations, machining devices, printers, suppliers, data

libraries, etc. are connected through MES the complexity of design grows

dramatically. Not one of these processes much less all can be frozen in time as

MES runs. This requires MES to calculate continually and provide up to date,

real time information as defined by its OLTP system design.

Decision makers often undervalue the importance of hardware in a

successful MES system. The biggest issue facing hardware design is

integration. The concept of ‘plug and play’ devices that collaborate on Windows

machines without any extra programming are becoming more and more

prevalent, but this is still a major consideration. Another major consideration is

sizing. As mentioned previously, size correlates with complexity. Data storage

capacity, peripheral connections (workstations, machines, printers, etc.), and

computational requirements provide metrics for establishing the specific

hardware necessary to support the desired specifications of the MES system to

be implemented.

The need for reliability within hardware requirements must be factored in

as well. Such an integral system cannot ‘go down’ without great ramifications.

14

The risk associated with operation and heavy reliance on this system is often

mitigated through running parallel components within the system, and having

data centers that temporarily store information passed to the program if it is

momentarily unable to accept. Such a design provides for operation during

scheduled maintenance as well.

Connections between devices play a vital role in the caliber of the system

as a whole. Devices usually connect via local area networks (LAN). The basic

premise of LAN networks is to provide connection between all devices at the

lowest cost. Various methods of layout design exist that connect devices in

series, parallel, or a combination. All layouts communicate through connection

points called nodes and controls for data integrity are implemented as well. The

most common cable for such connections is coaxial as it provides high data

transfer rates, strength in the manufacturing environment, and relatively

inexpensive pricing. Depending on the system requirements, fiber optic cables

provide the best solution on the market, but at a cost. Cables are not required for

every device as seen when a connection must be made to MES, but is too

mobile or inaccessible. Solutions, such as wireless networks, exist and have

been successfully implemented for communication with almost any device

enabling full interaction with MES.

Lastly, the devices themselves affect the speed, reliability, and overall

performance of the system. The term device seems quite broad as it refers to

any source or sink of data whether human or machine. When comparing a

human or machine data source, automated data collection should be given

priority over human input. Set forms and specific controls on a computer best

accomplish human entry, but only as a last resort. Strong data integrity and

timeliness, provided by automated entry, greatly improve the quality of the

system as a whole. Various devices such as barcode, RFID, smart machines,

and computer vision among many others are interfaced with MES and provide

real time data correctly. A robust and capable system relies heavily on the

foundation supplied by proficient hardware.

15

2.6 Current Out of Box (OOB) MES Manufacturing Execution Systems vary widely in functionality and

combination with other systems under the ERP umbrella. Numerous types of

MES have been developed based off the needs of the company attempting to

implement the system. MES systems exist in two main categories, homegrown

and purchased. The purchased category offers a myriad of software for a vast

array of companies all offering differing functionality and toting great user

interface.

Homegrown systems are relatively rare, and are generally implemented in

industries that cannot interface with standard OOB MES. These internally

developed systems were common when the term MES arrived in the early 1990’s

in one form or another. Throughout the last two decades numerous have been

scrapped and replaced with a purchased system.

Purchased MES systems are as varied as the industries they seek to

represent. Often MES are specialized to interface with the characteristics

represented by a larger pool of companies. For example, HYDRA specializes in

plastics, rubber, mold making, and automotive whereas Interax works in

aerospace and defense, electronics, and industrial machinery. Some MES

packages come with other modules such as customer relation’s management

(CRM) or asset management and occasionally with an integrated MRPII

component such as Exact JobBOSS. For a smaller company with little existing

computerized production management Exact JobBOSS would be an ideal

purchase because of the small-scale integration with MES and MRPII among

other components and financial modules.

Within the purchased systems category arrive huge ERP systems for

equally huge companies on a global scale. These systems are generally

provided by ORACLE or SAP. Both boast MES systems that work seamlessly

with their existing ERP packages and associated modules. With enough funding

these MES modules can be fully customized to the industry needs and

manufacturing characteristics. These will be the MES systems of focus in the

16

development of this thesis due to their overarching functionality and wide

adoption.

As a purchasable and configurable software package, MES systems can

be implemented following a systems engineering approach. Not all aspects of

this broad field are employed, but the strengths provided systems engineering

aid in properly managing such a complex implementation. In an essence,

utilizing systems engineering attempts to discover MES implementation in a

holistic view. Utilizing standard tools within systems engineering such as project

and complexity management, optimization, and risk management functions

streamlines the implementation process. Systems engineering places emphasis

up front on design in order to minimize issues encountered downstream.

Numerous interpretations of systems engineering exist. This versatile and

powerful topic is considered in the development of a systematic engineering

approach to MES implementation.

2.7 Cost/Reward of MES From the analysis of the benefits provided, and solutions to existing

problems, the reward for successful implementation should be great. Quantifying

the returns in time and money are not too difficult, but identifying all of the direct

and indirect benefits of a fully implemented MES system prove to be the most

challenging aspect of assigning an accurate return on investment. Kai-Ying

Chen in 2006 from National Taipei University of Technology has developed a

“performance measurement of implementing MES from several quantitative and

qualitative aspects by analyzing the basic functions and objectives of MES and

interviewing with some senior consultants and MES relates working staff.” His

paper displays a careful analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which is used to

prioritize the performance measurement indices. With around forty different

indices AHP was employed to identify the most influential of the candidates. In

conclusion Chen reports, “The main benefits of implanting MES are process

17

improvement and quality improvement.” To limit the influence to direct benefits

that can be quantified monetarily would be at great loss to the true value.

MESA International a well-established association of MES developers and

vendors provides another look at the value attained from implementing a full

MES system. Through industry surveys MESA has developed an expected

outcome for MES implementation. MESA International reports some impressive

statistics for direct benefits of MES.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of the manufacturers responding reported a reduction in manufacturing time of 45% or greater. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the manufacturers responding reported a reduction in entry time of 75% or better. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the manufacturers responding reported a reduction in WIP of 25% or better. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the manufacturers responding reported a reduction in paperwork between shifts of 50% or better. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the manufacturers responding reported reduction in lead time of 35% or better.

All of these figures are merely some of the direct benefits of MES, and do

not include any indirect. With this in mind MESA International reports their most

indelible fact, “Return On Investment/Payback Period (14 Months Average).”

This is truly impressive because for the initial investment of an MES system can

be enormous depending on complexity and size.

18

Chapter 3 - Thesis Work and Validation

As seen, a fully integrated MES system will greatly benefit a company

from numerous angles. Implementation practices and common knowledge

although are much more difficult to acquire. Numerous small to medium paper

driven companies could benefit from a manufacturing execution system.

Unfortunately, a lack of understanding of how to simultaneously shape the

existing manufacturing environment into one compatible with MES and control its

implementation is missing. Throughout all literature reviewed, none specifically

identified a successful plan for implementing MES. Many benefits and case

studies summarizing an implementation exist, as well as occasional identification

of issues and stakeholders, but no roadmap for systematic implementation

planning tool can be found. This thesis seeks to fulfill this important missing

aspect.

The construction of this tool requires complete understanding of MES and

its implementation. This problem is two faced. First, there exists a general lack

of understanding of a generic manufacturing environment ideally interfaced with

such an MES system, and how to carefully define the processes within. This

involves many issues including facility layout, process design and interaction,

and resource management. The second issue, the heaviest focus of this thesis,

is the lack of information regarding the actual implementation plan. The

developed implementation plan will precisely lay out stages and strategies

necessary to bring a company’s manufacturing environment from their current

state into a digital one interfaced with a manufacturing execution system.

The conglomeration of information presented in this thesis will provide

companies with valuable information to affordably and successfully control the

implementation a basic MES system. In the definition of processes and design of

a manufacturing environment based purely off the mandatory inputs to a MES

system, a visibility into the structure of an ideal manufacturing system interface

with a MES system will be exposed. The insights presented by this design will

be used to develop stages, measurable by percent of total implementation, and

19

strategies used to move a company’s manufacturing system through the process

of basic MES implementation to a fully integrated system.

The execution of the research requires a multiple stage analysis and trial

implementation. This process will involve the evaluation and understanding of

multiple out of box MES systems available for purchase. This analysis will also

provide the identification of multiple inputs into the system. Only when inputs are

defined, can stages and strategies of implementation be examined.

Issues causing the inability of a small to medium paper driven company to

implement a MES system will also be identified. Once these issues and inputs

are characterized, the main creation of the thesis will begin. A systematic

implementation planning strategy will be developed. Fourteen stages will be

identified to determine the levels of development necessary to achieve MES

implementation. Accompanying and summarizing these stages will be a

chronological execution map and strategies that when enacted, will bring a

company’s manufacturing environment to one seamlessly interfaced and capable

of reaping the benefits of a fully realized MES system.

The validity of the work accomplished by this thesis will be verified by a

comprehensive case study. This case study will consist of a full analysis of the

stages and implementation of the execution maps. Upon the completion of

alterations to the existing manufacturing environment, the full implementation and

effects of the MES system will be recognized by a medium sized satellite

communications company and the thesis work successfully validated.

20

Chapter 4 – MES as a System

Three main topics comprise this thesis. First, general concepts and

premises of MES as well as inputs into an out of box MES will be defined. Also,

recommended adaptations of the manufacturing environment based on these

inputs will be portrayed. Next, general issues facing small to medium sized

businesses when looking to implement an MES system will be addressed.

These issues will be overcome by a specific identification of stages defined by

levels of functionality of MES implementation, and strategies to best move from

one to the next, the main focus of this body of literature. The end result is the

presenting of a fourteen stage systematic planning approach for MES

implementation. Ultimately, this thesis will examine the effectiveness of this

proposed systematic implementation strategy with a specific company.

Conclusions will be made and a summary of the work written.

4.1 General Concepts

Have you have heard that no two snowflakes share the same physical

configuration? Well, the same theory holds true for manufacturing execution

systems. Therefore, an attempt to quantify MES and standardize the exact

concepts of the program across all businesses and industries would be futile.

The only definition that holds true in any scenario follows, “A manufacturing

execution system (MES) is an online integrated computer system that is the

accumulation of the methods and tools used to accomplish production.”

(McCellan, 1997, p.56) Essentially, two words can always be used in any

successful MES implementation: execution and integration. We will focus on

these two concepts as we move throughout this work.

21

4.2 Premises

Execution, as the main premise of MES, can be defined as the bridge

between planning and control. Planning seen in the various functions of the

MRP system. Control seen on the shop floor from humans, smart machines or

programmable logic systems. The collaboration of information between the

planning and control systems embodies the integration aspect of MES. These

connections provide the basis of defining the inputs into an MES system.

The complexity and inconsistency of MES systems dictate a very specific

program depending on each implementation scenario, but such wide variability

can be attributed to the user interface and level of desired functionality. Out of

box (OOB) MES systems are possible due to the development of standard

reusable application software and extended entity-relationship (EER) modeling

techniques. Use of these techniques is made possible from shared data control

and analysis between systems.

With this in mind, to define the complex functionality of MES one must

distil MES into its core functionalities. These functionalities must then be

examined for specific inputs. Once the system is displayed in fundamental

building blocks, it can then be recreated with a full understanding and a true

implementation plan may be established. The fundamental elements are inputs.

22

4.3 Inputs

Inputs to MES form the strength of the program. Execution cannot be

possible without proper awareness of the entire situation provided by the ERP

umbrella. The MES’s main source of information is the planning or MRPII

system, but the feedback loop from the control system also provides crucial

input. The planning device provides the

constructs by which the MES system defines

the activities required for production and the

control layer returns actual results and

continually refines the manufacturing process.

The primary aspects of focus when identifying

inputs into such an OOB MES are the

planning and control layers.

Inputs into an OOB MES system can be

broken down into ten specific concepts.

Numerous other elements are interfaced

under the ERP umbrella, but for a basic

functionality of MES to be realized, these ten

inputs are mandatory.

Functionalities and major inputs can be seen

in figure 3 above. The first and most apparent input

into MES comes directly from the planning level. This is demand. Demand sets

the fundamental requirements that drive the MRPII schedule, which the MES

system must attempt to fulfill. This basic input drives many of the MES

functionalities including scheduling and inventory management.

The second input, scheduling, is also of great importance. High level

scheduling and due dates are direct inputs into the MES system from the

planning layer (MRPII). The basic schedule will provide MES with the start and

end goals and provide it with the established guidelines by which to pilot

production.

Figure 3: MES Planning and Control Inputs

23

Inventory takes next of these concepts. As the most crucial aspect of

manufacturing, the planning and MES systems carefully control raw goods. In

the planning level, on hand totals of product are maintained by triggering

purchase orders. The planning level provides MES with initial inventory levels,

but as the system executes, data is returned to the planning level as actuals are

realized. As work in process (WIP) moves or supplies consumed, MES tracks

detailed data of inventory levels, location, and availability. This is usually done

automatically via flagging successful completion of stages and using other input

elements such as the bill of materials or routing to make calculations of inventory

usage. Any exceptions or rework can be directly accounted for by inputs from

operators on the floor. The control layer either a material handling system, in a

highly advanced manufacturing environment, or merely the operator retrieves

inventory based off the MES system’s execution outputs. Planning, execution,

and control layers all require and collectively maintain inventory data.

Inventory data cannot be calculated without another mandatory input, bill

of material (BOM). Bill of material data, comprised of name, quantity, lead time,

etc. resides under the ERP umbrella most likely in a computer aided

manufacturing database, and is a mandatory input to planning and execution

levels. The planning level essentially relies on BOM data for all of its

calculations, which are in turn inputs to MES. As a direct input into MES, BOM

and routing information are referenced when inventory is assigned to a specific

production station. MES relies on the integrity of BOM quantities to maintain

accurate inventory levels.

Routing information provides the map with which MES navigates WIP

through the manufacturing floor. As BOM information is held under the ERP

umbrella in a database so are routings. The planning level will utilize routing

information as well as time standards for high-level feasibility and capacity

planning. As an input to MES, routing information structures the backbone. The

execution level relies on routing information to construct finite schedules per

manufacturing operation. Routing information allows for the development of

24

potential schedules based off the priority and workload per operation. MES

analyzes these potential schedules by time, cost, labor, etc. to determine the

most desirable then implements the chosen agenda accordingly. If the factory

includes a material handling system, MES will use the routings to manage the

physical movement of the system and inventory within the system. The operator

is passed routing information by MES in the form of location of the product’s next

stage of manufacturing and associated directions. Routing information is the

core of MES. With more complex and interconnected routing of products through

the manufacturing floor, the more beneficial MES.

Process data, sixth, is not a traditional input to MES. MES does not

synthesize any data or make any calculations based off this input. Instead, it

acts as a transfer medium between the ERP cloud database holding this process

data and the control layer/operator. Highly automated machines could be setup

by this transfer of data, or at minimum, the operator could see a particular set of

tasks required for the specific product at his or her workstation. Process data is

not limited to instructions or settings. BOM and routing information is often

included in this transfer of information. The MES system provides for maximum

knowledge at the operators fingertips.

Capacity planning continues to build the mathematical model of the factory

floor in the eyes of MES. The planning layer conducts total capacity planning

which is input into the execution layer. Once in the MES layer, capacity planning

is broken down further into finite and actual real time capacity for every

manufacturing operation. This data is continually refined from actuals gathered

from the control layer. MES builds its scheduling models accurately reflecting

capacity planning data.

Inputs and outputs into the standard manufacturing environment must be

accounted for as well. The receiving of purchased goods into the system, their

inventory location, and any quality control or other data accompanying the

shipment is carefully documented by the MES system. These inputs are used in

inventory calculations and the accompanying data is used in metric generation

and quality control. Receiving quantities are also input into the planning layer

25

where they are assigned to purchase orders. This data is then passed to the

MES system to be executed.

The ninth input to MES is the only to come entirely from the control level.

Operational data comprises much of the information input used in reporting from

the MES system. With wide variability, operational data consists of the actuals

seen on the shop floor. From serialization, completion times, rework measures,

setup time, or throughput, this information is held in the MES system and

uploaded to other ERP modules. In the MES layer, operational data is used for

reporting purposes as well as refining the mathematical model of the shop floor.

MES collects this data by either automated machine upload or manual input by

the operator. Under the distinction of operational data, quality control and testing

data is also collected.

Lastly MES provides for the execution of engineering change orders

(ECO). This input is held in a database under the ERP umbrella, and passed to

the MES system. New production items will be logged with the required ECO.

MES will also identify and execute any repair items in need of ECO service.

The main issue in collaborating these inputs in a manner capable of

interfacing with an out of box MES system is process definition. The hardest part

of MES implementation is definition. The precise defining of both the

specification of desired functionality of software as well as actual manufacturing

processes to be input into the system challenges small to medium size

companies to carefully examine and standardize their processes.

With these inputs a more precise definition of purpose of MES comes to

light. Beyond basic execution MES also seeks to answer real time problems

affecting the processes on the manufacturing floor. With such a complete

knowledge base, MES maintains real-time insight into the status of operations

and feeds carefully synthesized information to management.

MES assists production management throughout its entire lifecycle. The

first phase implementation of MES is never the last. This means that MES also

serves as a tool for continual improvement when developed over the entire

manufacturing environment and evolved to include all functionality.

26

As the focus of this endeavor surrounds small to medium sized

businesses, the ideal level of implementation varies. General issues include

funding availability, interest of stakeholders, and time. These issues along with

inputs will be analyzed in Chapter 5 in the development of a systematic planning

approach to successful MES implementation.

4.4 Adapting the Manufacturing Environment

The manufacturing environment of a small to medium sized company

often harbors more complexity than a fully flushed large-scale operation. This is

due to the fact that the interworking of individuals is specific only to that person

and task. The same task is more often than not done differently between

operator and each view their way as correct. Without established processes an

MES system cannot flourish.

Often times the adaptation required in a manufacturing environment

proves not so much change as standardization. In the process of adjusting the

system to fit MES, numerous other quality measures must be taken. This leads

to concepts such total quality management, lean, and process improvement

philosophies being introduced and simultaneously employed in a conjunctive

effort to mold the manufacturing system to interface with MES.

The most common issue plaguing a small to medium sized company

attempting to implement MES is established routing. A facilities design engineer

has most likely never examined the physical movement of products through the

manufacturing environment. With the definition of routing, processes, and

resource centers the ideal floor layout can be identified. As mandatory inputs to

the digital construction of the shop floor in MES established processes must be

determined.

With the current understanding presented and understood, the ultimate

creation of a systematic planning approach to successful MES implementation

may be explored.

27

Chapter 5 – Systematic Planning Approach to MES Implementation

A systematic planning approach to successful MES implementation has

been developed that provides for a visual understanding of the chronological

implementation of MES. This graphical representation of the 14 stages of

implementation can be utilized as a reference guide. Exit criteria defined for

each stage provide the user with a strong understanding of the current

progression and open action items. Successful implementation requires strong

organization and planning facilitated by the execution tool seen on pages 28 and

29.

28

Explore MES

•Stage 1: Explore MES

•Arrives as solution to ongoing problems or pain

•EXIT: Reasearch into MES and desire to continue

Feasible MES

•Stage 2: MES Project Feasibility

•Feasibility emerges with requirements definition and stakeholder involvement

•EXIT: Involvement of all stakeholders, initial feature discussion and primary feature identification, established project feasibility

Project Analysis

•Stage 3: Project Analysis

•Gap Analysis looks at current and future states and identifies a path and deliverables

•EXIT: Solidify MES system requirements and complete high-level documentation of the project process and deliverables.

Make vs. Buy

•Stage 4: Make vs. Buy

•Data collection on avaliable systems (OOB and build-to-suit)

•EXIT: Assimilation of previous stage’s information in completed RFP’s.

Choosing Vendor

•Stage 5: Choosing a Vendor

•Decision making tools such as AHP are employed to make a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the proposed solutions.

•EXIT: Single proposal has been selected

SOW

•Stage 6: Statement of Work (SOW)

•Colaboration between company and vendor on defining all aspects of project (including pilot product)

•EXIT: SOW complete and a team of resources selected.

Gap Analysis

•Stage 7: Gap Analysis

•Understanding of the discrepencies halting implemention of MES (Data strutures, interface with surrounding systems, user requirements, etc.)

•EXIT: Completed gap analysis and requirements for integration

29

System Architecture

•Stage 8: System Architecture

•Software and hardware design from specifications of MES

•EXIT: Defined system communication, layout, and architecture as well as understanding of hardware components to be purchased

Pilot Project

•Stage 9: Pilot Program

•Solidifies the functionalities desired within MES specific for the pilot program, and determines data collection methods

•EXIT: Documents detailing the elements of manufacturing as well as the data collection points necessary to facilitate implementation

Implemen-tation

•Stage 10: Implementation

•Implementation of all previously defined design, both high level and detailed

•EXIT: Realization of a working prototype of the MES system specific to the pilot product

Testing

•Stage 11: Test Prototype MES

•Confrence room pilot where stakeholders assign theoretical roles and ‘move’ product through the system

•EXIT: MES system must be in place and successfully used by both operator and supervisor roles

Verify & Validate

•Stage 12: Verification and Validation

•Qualifiy direct and indirect benefits and check system has met desired levels of functionality

•EXIT: Completion of metrics and system verification and validation

Roll-Out

•Stage 13: Full Scale Implementation

•All actions must be repeated for each product line and functionality

•EXIT: Verification and validation of entire system

Monitor & Maintain

•Stage 14: Monitor & Maintain

•Day-to-day operation is maintained and feature additions/subtractions managed

•Ongoing for the lifecycle of MES

30

With this systematic tool in mind, the explanation and required execution

will be explored for each stage. The best way to define the complex application

of MES to a system is by quantifying the level of functionality incorporated in the

design. From initial conception to steady state, monitoring the stages of MES

implementation will define a road map capable of depicting the best path to

successful rollout and reception throughout the company. To achieve such a

successful product, careful consideration to all aspects and a system engineering

mentality must be employed.

The V-Model, utilized in system engineering, provides an excellent

portrayal of the high level processes by which the stages of implementation can

be categorized. The V-Model in Figure 4 below serves as a graphical

representation of the process of system development. Through delineating the

phases of system development, the V-Model provides clarity by mandating

completion of necessary documents to exit a phase. Numerous stages comprise

most phases found in the V-Model.

Figure 4: V-Model of Systems Engineering

‘Concept of Operations’ is the first phase of the V-Model. This phase is

entered with initial conception of MES. Generally, such a beginning stems from a

need or deficiency in the current system. Numerous possibilities exist for the

initial consideration of MES. Often times issues surrounding visibility into the

31

actual occurrences on the manufacturing floor are first realized by upper

management. Without proper data collection and analysis mid-level

management cannot answer questions regarding inventory, work in progress,

historical records, and cycle times among others. After realizing this lack of

control, MES is concluded to be the best opportunity for improvement.

5.1 Stage 1 – MES Explored

With this in mind Stage 1 is entered. In this stage the option of MES is

explored. Often with little to no initial understanding of MES, management

begins to reveal this option through personal research and possibly a consultant.

The strengths of MES defined previously entice the decision makers with

promises of great improvements. As the layers of MES are pealed back, the

complexity arises and costs come into play. The exit criteria for Stage 1 are the

simple research into MES, and the desire to examine the possibility.

5.2 Stage 2 – MES Project Feasibility

Here stage 2 begins. More evolved, the actual means of executing this

drastic project are first explored. The beginning components of a statement of

work are proposed. The scope of the project is investigated. As the solutions

provided by MES systems are varied and not all required, defining requirements

and involving stakeholders proves the main focus of Stage 2. The process of

requirements definition also marks the beginning of the second phase of the V-

Model. Requirements definition for specific applications will change the stages of

implementation actually used from this work, but in order to maintain generality,

the assumption of a complete MES system will be upheld throughout. In the

process of requirements planning many inputs must be gathered. For the

successful adoption of MES, all stakeholders that stand to gain or be affected by

this software, must be involved. This in itself proves a massive undertaking as

32

expectation management and viability must be balanced by cost and time

constraints. Simultaneously, project feasibility emerges.

In Stage 2, in accordance with the V-Model theory, much thought is placed

into detailed design at the beginning of the project in order to reduce uncertainty

and risk throughout. As a strongly requirements-driven software that is highly

variable, the concept of mining for desired functionality, and flushing out any

potential issues is of utmost importance. This proves to be an ongoing process.

The exit criteria for Stage 2 are as follows: involvement of all stakeholders, initial

feature discussion and primary feature identification, established project

feasibility most importantly in terms of cost and time constraints.

5.3 Stage 3 – Project Analysis

As stage 3 commences the project begins to evolve and becomes much

more involved. The main focus of this stage is the “gap analysis.” The analysis

itself cannot be done at this stage, and probably not even by the company itself,

but in this analysis the understanding of the current state and the future state is

flushed out. With beginning and end states defined, the decision makers can

then set about in determining how the transition will be made and define

deliverables along a timeline. At this stage the company actively pursues the

assistance of an outside consultant/vendor. Stage 3 serves to solidify the

envisioned MES system, and the exit criterion is an almost complete high-level

understanding and associated documentation of the project process and

deliverables.

33

5.4 Stage 4 – Decision Strategies

Stage 4 is characterized by the ‘make versus buy’ decision. With a strong

understanding of requirements, analyses of current out of box (OOB) and

potential build to suit options may be explored. Each with their own set of costs

and benefits, a side-by-side comparison is made. Often in this process the

assistance of a professional consultant versed in the intricacies of MES will assist

the decision makers. With general lines defined, request for proposals (RFP’s)

are generated and sent along these channels. A few important considerations

are taken into play at this stage.

In determining the make versus buy decision, a fully informed decision is

critical. With current knowledge of the manufacturing environment, desired

functionality, and available systems the best decision can be made. Another

significant factor lies in the consideration of the existing enterprise resource

planning (ERP) system. The ERP system and its modules interact closely with

the proposed MES system as previously described. Due to this data intensive

relationship the selected MES system must interface with minimal issues with the

existing systems. With all influences documented and measured the best course

of action may be chosen.

In analysis of the existing solutions across the MES board, the best

solution varies. For a discrete manufacturing company with a relatively high

product variability and volume an OOB MES system should be chosen. This is

due to the fact that there are numerous MES systems for this type of

manufacturing environment that most likely specialized to the company’s field.

This is the ideal company for OOB MES implementation due to the ability to

leverage all components an MES system has to offer. Companies with low

product variability and high or low volume should also choose an OOB MES, and

will realize similar returns though possibly not utilize all available features. OOB

MES systems are the most common as they are a cost effective and provide an

established system. The only time a built to suit MES outweighs an OOB

solution is when the product or manufacturing environment is very obscure and

34

highly individualized. The costs of time, money, and knowledge required to

design from the ground up prove OOB solutions the most attractive.

With little other consideration, a MES system provided by overarching

ERP packages such as Oracle or SAP should be chosen providing the

associated ERP system is already in place. The potential to interface, with little

or no added development, to modules across the business provides an incredible

cost benefit ratio. Selecting this option minimizes additional software

architecture. Such an implementation will be an ideal case study as described

later in this work. Phase two of the V-Model comes to a close in this stage as the

high-level system requirements are all met, and the basic design has been

established. The exit criterion for stage 4 is assimilation of previous stage’s

information in completed RFP’s.

5.5 Stage 5 – Choosing a Vendor

Stage 5 begins with proposals in hand from on average between two and

five organizations; the final decision can now be made. Using decision making

tools such as the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) or paired comparison

analysis the various options may be scrutinized. Through identifying relative

importance of features, timeline, cost, etc. as well as qualitative analysis of

desired factors, the strengths of the models may be compared. For this decision,

the AHP process works wonders as the major factors of the models may be

directly compared on a quantitative level. The AHP decision compares important

issues on a deeper level that include user interface, functionality, time for

implementation, change management, and risk among many others. These

factors are all identified and qualitatively measured for each proposal. Then the

factors themselves are qualitatively measured against one another regardless of

proposal. Ultimately, using matrix calculations, the proposal with the highest

score is identified. Stage 5 is exited when a specific proposal is chosen.

35

5.6 Stage 6 – Statement of Work (SOW)

A statement of work (SOW) to be signed by both the company adopting

MES as well as the vendor company dominates stage 6. In stage 6 many issues

that have been touched upon in the previous stages are solidified. A statement

of work will dictate the responsibilities between each company. Often this

includes a solution plan, project schedule, resource plan, project budget, risk

assessment, and a training plan. With these documents defined and the

acceptance criteria set the project can be easily visualized. In a statement of

work the features desired are also somewhat set in stone. Communication

protocols and resource expectations from both companies are established. One

of the largest aspects included in a SOW concerns the pilot implementation plan.

The pilot plan remains crucial to the successful adoption of MES

throughout the process. To begin a pilot plan the first decision arrives with the

identification of a product line that will serve as the original product supported by

MES. This is a difficult decision and is comprised of three main characteristics.

First, the choice must be made of a product that embodies many if not all of the

manufacturing processes of the company. Second, to select an ideal product,

the product flow diagram must be scrutinized to identify all modes of data

collection. Lastly, this product should have a large financial impact within the

company so that the financial analyses presented along with the program are

strong as well. With a product that contains all of the aforementioned

characteristics, a well-built pilot program may be conducted. This program will

serve as a strong proof of concept. Addressing all possible issues and

conditions throughout the manufacturing process, such a proof of concept stands

against the most difficult criticisms.

The decisions made concerning the pilot program are reflected and built

upon in the various other aspects of a complete SOW. An effective SOW

dictates the need for a solution plan that describes the setup of the application

and any software or hardware necessary to implement the pilot program. Project

schedules often completed in Microsoft Project lay out project deliverables,

36

resources, and durations. Assembled from actions defined in the schedule as

well as resource plans accurate project costing and budgets are built to

specifications from the initial proposals. The SOW also requires risk

identification, impact, and mitigation strategies are to be compiled in a risk matrix

document. Ultimately, a training plan is requested, as the consultant group must

transfer their knowledge of operations to the company once MES is

implemented. Stage 6 concludes with a SOW complete and a team of resources

selected.

5.7 Stage 7 – Gap Analysis

Now that the project has been fully defined, and the first two phases of the

V-Model completed, stage 7 commences. The third and last phase of the project

definition leg of the V-model is ‘detailed design.’ Detailed design is a

complicated stage. To begin this stage the gap analysis previously begun in

stage 3 must be completed. From stage 3 the current and future states have

been defined. The gap analysis requires examining the actual information

available in the current system and identifying the missing or incorrect format for

integration with MES. This information is varied, and depends on the desired

functionality within the MES system.

Information held within the current system is broad. Routing, BOM, work

centers, resources, capacity data among much more are generally held in

databases under the ERP umbrella. The existing data, its current state, and its

storage mechanisms must be understood. Such understanding will be utilized in

the implementation process to identify issues so that the pilot program may be

successfully run. As the main focus of the gap analysis is determining the steps

necessary to implement MES, a logical construction must be followed. The

foundation must be established. Data provides the groundwork, which all other

functions require for performance. The depth and strength of the data, both in

content and storage, dictates the success of the program as a whole. Next, the

constructs or walls must be built. The constructs can be defined as the actual

37

shop floor modeling and definition within the system. This also refers to interface

with other systems throughout the ERP umbrella. Ultimately, the roof or ‘outside’

is implemented. This is the actual user interface. Whether this refers to the form

by which the operator inputs data, or the display the shop manager reads in

order to expedite an order, the user interface proves the ultimate goal and the

end all evaluation criteria for success.

A complete gap analysis also provides both the adopting and consultant

companies with a clear understanding of the work necessary to implement MES.

At this point, statements of work and their associated schedule, resource, and

budget may have to be reworked even though this is not favorable. The exit

criterion for stage 7 is a completed gap analysis and the assimilation of

understanding of all steps required for integration.

5.8 Stage 8 – System Architecture

Stage 8 truly showcases the detailed design of the system. System

architecture is the main focus during this stage. Two main concentrations exist

during this stage: software and hardware. Hardware specifications must be

determined based on the previously defined system requirements. As earlier

stated, size of the system defines complexity, and complexity delineates the

requirements of the hardware. Higher levels of complexity necessitate better

hardware in terms of data storage capacity, peripheral connections (workstations,

machines, printers, etc.), local networks, and computational requirements. The

exact hardware will be determined and supplied by the vendor identified in stage

5.

One of the biggest costs and most controllable from careful early stage

design is software architecture. This software performs beside MES to facilitate

the data flow to and from MES. Essentially data can be stored in various formats

or arrive packaged in numerous formats from any device within the system. Any

additional software’s main purpose would be to synthesize this data for its usage

within MES. Complexity of the system, requirements of other software with

38

which MES communicates, and variability of data collection devices define the

extent of additional programming architecture necessary to seamlessly

implement MES.

Software architecture can also be required within MES. Occasionally, with

specific requirements, OOB MES systems lack certain reporting functionality or

other such services desired by the implementation team. This generally occurs

within a very specific manufacturing environment or implementation scenario.

Such additional software development is entirely possible, and will have been

defined in the statement of work completed in stage 6. This is not an issue with

built to suit MES systems as the entirety of its functional design arrives within this

stage as well as a vast majority of cost. Detailed design goes beyond system

architecture. The exit criteria for stage 8 are completed documents graphically

and verbally defining system communication, layout, and architecture as well as

a clear understanding of the exact hardware components to be purchased.

5.9 Stage 9 – Pilot Program

Stage 9 solidifies the functionalities desired within MES specific for the

pilot program, and determines data collection methods. In this stage sufficient

knowledge of MES has been obtained to facilitate the development of an actual

working pilot program. Previously identified functionalities must be aligned with

the pilot program. In this stage a company may scale back initial requirements of

the MES system in order to progress the chosen product through the MES

implementation. Basic functionality and successful operation of MES serves as a

strong proof of concept that provides for the continued integration and ultimate

scaling to the entire manufacturing environment across all product lines.

Data collection points for the pilot program are also defined in accordance

to desired functionality. To accomplish this, all aspects involved in the

manufacturing of the product previously chosen for the pilot study must be

understood. Often, this is achieved by developing a process flow chart if not

already in existence. Determining the flow defines the workstations, operations,

39

machines, quality measures, transportation, and storage locations with which the

item interacts. These are the essential data collection points necessary to

implement basic MES functionality. Exit criteria for stage 9 are completed

documents detailing the elements of manufacturing for the pilot project as well as

the data collection points necessary to facilitate implementation.

5.10 Stage 10 – Implementation

In stage 10 implementation begins. The implementation phase lies at the

bottom of the V-Model. This phase provides the methodology with which the

consulting company develops the first iteration of MES. Stage 10 will focus on

implementing an out of box (OOB) MES system. To begin implementing

functionality, the fundamental operations must first be defined in MES.

The manufacturing system specific to the pilot product must be delineated

in MES. The defining of operations necessary to manufacture the pilot product

dominates the beginning of the implementation phase. Each operation must be

defined and stored for reference within MES. Labor and machine resources and

credentials as well as time and material requirements must be defined for each

specific operation. Once operations are defined, the flow or order must be

established. Here, operations are labeled to occur in series or parallel. MES

utilizes the breakdown of detail to specific operations to construct ideal schedules

for expeditious execution. Operation definition proves critical to the

implementation of MES.

Storage and inventory also must be defined for MES to fully define the

manufacturing environment. Capacity must be identified for each storage

location for both long term and work in progress. Existing inventory levels must

be input for each location as well.

Perhaps the most important aspect of MES is the defined scheduling

system. This user specific method of scheduling can be a simple as a

chronological series of operations, but is always complicated with numerous

constraints. Many theories and scheduling practices may be selected for this

40

operation. OOB MES systems begin with basic demand based scheduling. MES

fulfills basic scheduling by examining capacity of the manufacturing floor and

lead times. Some systems are configured for more complex scheduling including

kanban, level loading, or even drum-buffer-rope. The exact scheduling

component of MES varies by system.

With a simulated manufacturing environment defined in MES, operations

may be run off its structure. These operations are the functionalities promised by

MES implementation. Basic functionalities of MES generally identified in the pilot

project as described previously include:

Dispatch driven execution

Display of work content and instructions

Clock in/out functionality

Transaction reporting and controls

Exception management

Serialization

Shop floor device and test equipment integration

Automated printing of travelers and labels

Labor skills validation

Supervisor dashboard

With successful implementation of the above functionality, a working MES

pilot program can be realized. For an OOB MES, implementation of functional

parts of the system is best described as ‘turning on’ certain elements. To

accomplish this, each element requires specific data collection and input points

to facilitate proper operation.

The data required for the dispatch driven execution functionality of MES to

be activated is a schedule input from the planning system (MRPII), resource

information, capacity, and current status. The timeliness and format of the data

transfer is paramount, and the vendor will determine exact details. MES then

41

controls the execution of this plan, and reschedules if any issues or alterations

arise. Dispatch driven execution serves the operator as the stepping off point for

all actions. Besides displaying work orders by priority, it provides ability for

recording work related transactions. These transaction reports include start and

finish times, work in progress movement, scrap, and exceptions. This user-

generated data is then fed back to MES, synthesized, and schedule changes are

made accordingly. With this data structure in place dispatch driven execution

may be implemented.

Much data is necessary to implement the display of work content and

instructions on the operator’s terminal. The specific details previously outlined

for each operation form the fundamental information passed to the employee’s

terminal. This information can include sequential tasks, information on children,

and routing information. Display of work content proves one of the strongest

drivers in eliminating the traveler, and striving for a paperless manufacturing

environment.

For MES to support clocking in or out makes perfect sense. In line with

the focus of an ERP system, the operator would have to record this information

manually. Since the MES system provides tracking for start and stop times for a

specific job, calculations for total time spent on a certain project, and throughout

the day are simplified. Such reporting removes non-value added activities from

the machinist. This functionality requires no extra data configuration as the job

number is already defined by the work order the operator is fulfilling. Time

capture is a prime example of MES interface with the greater ERP system.

Actuals are passed into the ERP databases and are referenced throughout

manufacturing, but also by payroll and finances.

Transaction reporting and controls provide the structure by which the

operator moves the product through the manufacturing floor. A component of

other functionalities, transaction reporting comprises much of the data generation

on the shop floor. Solid user interface prepares the machinist with the ability to

simultaneously report multiple movements, time expenditures, quality results, or

many other transactions. The control portion refers to the required data to

42

progress to the next stage or operation according to the flow of the product. By

controlling how transactions are processed, MES monitors the actions of the

shop floor. Here, logic gates are defined that govern the shop floor activities.

Operations definition, flow, and logic criterion data is required to implement this

functionality.

Exception management forms the source of many strengths associated

with MES. With exception management, operators can report events such as

missing/unfit components, inoperable machines, fatal quality problems, or

missing operators. This information is used to alert supervisors, but also to avoid

missed production quotas. Once MES is informed of an issue it undergoes

rescheduling of operations and reevaluation of priorities. This minimizes the

detriment caused by the fault in the production line. To enable this functionality,

possible exceptions must be defined and stored in MES databases. MES

measures and seeks to minimize the effect on the system by removing possible

operations from the rescheduling.

Serialization exists as a rather simple task in MES when compared to

paper controlled systems. Much of the serialization data is input along the way

as subassemblies are constructed or purchase orders received, and

predetermined by naming algorithms that exist in other modules under the ERP

umbrella. MES utilizes the predetermined serial numbers to compile, store, and

recover historical records. This includes more than just transactions, and is most

valuable for determining child serial numbers from a parent. Well-integrated

MES systems occasionally interface with supplier information. This provides

ability to track production to its origin. Serialization provides for the ability to

assign certain production to work orders, and maintain control of specific items

throughout production.

Shop floor device and test equipment integration delivers vast quantities of

data to MES. With similar purpose as transaction reporting, device and test

equipment provide automated responses to actions on the shop floor. As

expected, smart machines provide for higher caliber and faster transaction

reporting. Much of the work to integrate these machines into MES has been

43

previously described in system architecture. Implementation of this functionality

requires no other data development or structure, but rather data management in

order to properly transfer, interpret, and store information.

Ideally, a company’s manufacturing floor would be completely paperless,

but many factors dictate the need for paper travelers. MES provides automated

printing of travelers and labels seeded with information already within MES.

Operators may print from their workstation to remote printers set up during the

device integration stage. Beyond traveler printing, label printing also benefits the

company greatly. Label selection, sizing, and printing often prove difficult and

faulty. With MES previously defined labels are seeded and printed with the push

of a button. Therefore, for this functionality to be leveraged, data structures must

be developed before they may be seeded with information within MES. Label

printing is often more complex as different material and sizes are required forcing

the utilization of multiple printers. Traveler generation generally works with one

or a few templates based off product line or work center.

Companies with highly trained human resources rely on labor skills

validation. With MES, records may be stored that evaluate the ability of the

operator to perform a task. If an operator is not qualified to transact an

operation, MES will alert the operator and prohibit the action. Training records

may be incorporated from other modules of the ERP umbrella. Otherwise, data

must be generated that list the qualifications of a specific operator and their

ability to fulfill a required operation. When this functionality has been turned on,

MES schedules with adherence to labor qualifications. ISO standards are upheld

with implementation of labor skills validation.

Ultimately, the supervisor dashboard will be implemented. This user

interface provides for more complex interaction with MES. In this application,

jobs may be expedited, priorities assigned, and exceptions resolved. This level

of control allows for the streamlining of decision making required for maximized

productivity and seamless operations. The manager is equipped with a tool that

provides insight into the exact operations of the shop floor.

44

The value of collecting such vast quantities of data would be lost if metrics

were not generated. With great knowledge, great understanding may be

achieved. The supervisor dashboard pulls from all data collected to provide

managers with real time insight into the actions of the shop floor. Key metrics

include:

Production to plan – Determines progression according to schedule

Work order shortages – Identifies missing resources or capacity

Labor performance metrics – Quantifies labor efficiency

First pass yield – Alerts to quality of product

Many other metrics are produced from the data generated within MES. Perhaps

one of the most valuable is the work order shortage as it provides a look into the

future and preventatively alerts the supervisor to an issue that will occur with the

current schedule. Overall, the supervisor dashboard provides a clear

understanding into the manufacturing environment in real time.

Stage 10 proves long and complex. The vendor company will accomplish

most of the work. Intermittent signoffs of progression should be established as

the project develops. Complete implementation will come eventually, but this

stage provides a working proof of concept. Exit criterion for stage 10 is a working

prototype of the MES system specific to the pilot product.

5.11 Stage 11 – Test Prototype MES

With implementation complete, the final leg of the V-Model begins. In

stage 11 the prototype MES system is put through rigorous testing. Numerous

users exercise all functionalities of MES from every angle. Such testing begins

with the high-level stakeholders in a ‘conference room’ pilot. These individuals

sit around a table and assign theoretical roles and ‘move’ product through the

system. In an effort to highlight any issues the proof of concept MES must

45

perform to expectations. During this exercise, the vendor is simultaneously

teaching the users how to interact and control the system.

Once satisfied with performance on a theoretical level, the MES system

will be tested in the actual manufacturing environment. Once installed on the

operator’s respective terminals, operators will be trained and expected to interact

with MES. Shop floor supervisors must also be trained for their role in MES.

They too will be required to employ the supervisor dashboard for completion of

daily activities. Integrated into the manufacturing floor and the daily activities of

the operators, the pilot MES may be evaluated for influence. For exit criterion to

be met, the MES system must be in place and successfully used by both

operator and supervisor roles. Stage 11 concludes once the exit criterion has

been fulfilled.

5.12 Stage 12 – Verification and Validation

Stage 12 begins once sufficient data has been collected to perform

comparison calculations between the before and after states. This is the next

phase of the V-Model. During this phase the MES system’s success is verified

and validated. Validation is accomplished by calculations that attempt to assign

cost to both direct and indirect benefits. Time saved for required operations

prove the easiest direct benefit to quantify. Hopefully, in a controlled system, the

previous time required to perform each element of production was recorded.

With a new system, time studies for each element must be reevaluated. The

reduction or elimination of data entry presents one of the largest time savings.

With a very tangible difference in time, multiplied by the cost per hour of the

operator, a dollar value of direct time savings may be presented. Another direct

benefit can be seen with increased throughput. Decreased cycle times and

reduction of non-value added activities lead to higher productivity. The previous

production quantities per shift can be compared to the new. Decreased carrying

costs due to minimized inventory levels can be presented in dollar format as well.

46

Direct benefits are easy to quantify and are represented in dollars off the bottom

line.

Indirect benefits far outweigh direct benefits and are much more difficult to

quantify. Such benefits include increased customer satisfaction, increased

employee responsibility and communication, more accurate reporting and

historical record keeping, increased visibility into operations and associated

quality, and higher award potential for new contracts. Portions of these benefits

may be captured when measuring direct, but not all. Unmeasured portions of

indirect benefits are difficult to quantify with a dollar amount. Savings here are

gradually realized over extended periods of time. Such ongoing indirect benefits

generally outweigh direct benefits. Overall, cost rewards of implementing MES

depend on the size of the system and extent of leverage.

System validation looks to ensure that the implemented software has

indeed met desired levels of functionality. This is accomplished by testing of

operational abilities, and comparison to characteristics predetermined in the

statement of work. Such analyses determine the completeness of the system

and its adherence to the initial design concepts. Cost savings and benefits,

completeness of implementation, and acceptance within shop floor weigh the

heaviest in determining overall success of implementation. Stage 12 terminates

when the exit criterion, completion of metrics as well as system verification and

validation, have been finished.

5.13 Stage 13 – Full Scale Implementation

Implementation across the manufacturing environment in stage 13 follows

the previous phases. With the pilot program in place the steady state of

operation is defined and set as a standard for shop floor wide implementation.

For full scale rollout to be accomplished, all actions must be repeated for each

product line as functionality is rolled out. Full scale operation proves much more

intricate as numerous complexities arise when product lines share labor,

machines, and raw material. Expansion across product lines is streamlined

47

providing similar steps are taken such as the deconstruction of them

manufacturing environment into specific operations, storage locations, etc. and

systems and practices across product lines are upheld. Large scale MES

operation comes much more easily when a solid proof of concept has been

implemented because all data structures, lines of communication, operations,

and user interfaces already exist. Metrics must again be imposed on the new

system in an effort to verify and validate the system. Rollout of MES to the entire

manufacturing floor gains traction the more product lines involved, and the level

of success dramatically increases.

5.14 Stage 14 – Monitor and Maintain

Stage 14 commences when integration is complete. During this stage the

system is monitored and maintained. This is the final aspect of the V-Model.

During this phase, day-to-day operation is maintained. Any adjustments or

feature additions that occur during the extended operation stage will cause a

reexamination and utilization of the aforementioned stages. Stage 14 endures

along with MES. Adding or removing product lines, devices, and functionality

seems inevitable as the nature of MES is constantly changing to adapt and best

serve the manufacturing environment. Stage 14 is ongoing for the lifecycle of

MES.

With these stages developed, a systematic planning approach to

successful MES implementation can be presented that provides for a visual

understanding of the chronological implementation of MES. This graphical

representation of the 14 stages of implementation will be utilized as a reference

guide for planning and control of MES implementation. Exit criteria defined for

each stage provide the user with a strong understanding of the current

progression and open action items. Successful implementation requires strong

organization and planning facilitated by the work presented in this thesis.

48

Chapter 6 – Case Study

A case study utilizing the systematic planning approach to successful

MES implementation presented in chapter 5 has been accomplished by an

undisclosed company. This company is in the process of transitioning through

the MES planning tool. Verification and validation measures have been defined

in the process of quantifying benefits. MES implementation had been considered

for numerous years, but was only accomplished with a new and clear perspective

on the situation facilitated by the information on hand. At the time of this

analysis, a prototype MES system for a pilot product is being developed.

Proposed metrics have also been identified.

As a medium size company with a discrete manufacturing environment

this company was able to leverage the full extent of the MES road map/planning

tool presented above. This company began with an existing ERP system

established. The selected OOB solution was provided by Oracle, the same

platform as the ERP. This solution required minimal software integration to

collaborate with the other modules under the ERP umbrella. Oracle was chosen

due to the fact that it provided all functionality desired for a competitive price.

When MES was first considered, a best of breed software was examined for its

improved functionality. Once a cost benefit analysis was performed it was clear

that the large expenses incurred with integrating the system into the existing ERP

would be more timely and costly than possible. Oracle was selected due to the

fact that the integration was seamless to the existing Oracle ERP and because

the core desired functionality existed.

This company began with many opportunities for improvement from MES

implementation. Predominately paper driven, the manufacturing environment

had been well defined and flow charts existed for each of the products to be

incorporated into MES. Thorough shop floor definition provided for ease of

operations definition and routing. The major issues plaguing the implementation

were data structures and vendor commitment.

49

The statement of work signed by the vendor and the company thoroughly

outlined the expected product and deliverables. The project was streamlined by

thorough high level and detail design. Gap analysis for the prototype project

returned numerous missing data fields within the established data structure. This

was addressed for each functionality, and established in the database structure

by a combination of vendor and internal information technology resources. This

blend of labor capital also provided for the definition and implementation of

system architecture. Additional software was developed for interface with testing

devices on the shop floor. Hardware requirements have been established for full

rollout, but have yet to be implemented, as the existing system is sufficient to

support the pilot project.

The pilot project was chosen for various reasons that made it a high profile

product. The manufacturing process includes numerous buy items and

subassemblies, internal purchases from other divisions, production and assembly

in different locations, and quality control through all testing equipment. The pilot

product exemplifies all aspects of manufacturing found throughout the

manufacturing floor.

The implementation phase of this project is ongoing. Operations are

defined and data structures necessary to store the vital information have been

developed. Accomplished by identifying data collection points and breaking the

system down into components or operations small enough to facilitate data

capture at transactions. Workstations and flow have been input into the MES

databases and can be readily referenced for routing and scheduling purposes.

Functionality expected for the pilot project has defined all aspects of

development so far and includes the following:

Configurable work list driven shop floor execution

Configurable work content and sequential display of instructions

Clock-In/Clock-Out for time capture

Shop floor transaction processing

Integrated material transactions with lot and serial number entry

50

Shop floor exception processing

Seeded traveler printing

Supervisor level exception summary with drill down to details

Exception impact assessment

Capacity and/or resource shortages

Current state view of entire shop floor

Views by project, product, item, department, operation, etc.

Expediting of work orders

Work order transaction histories/product sterilization

Labor reporting

Labor skills validation

Serial number management on parents and children

Enforce updates to operations before moving

Integration with standard Oracle quality

Implementation of such requirements will serve as a strong proof of

concept. Once the determined functionality is in place, conference room pilot

testing will take place and metrics will be developed. Metrics will ultimately be

recorded in this thesis at a later date.

6.1 MES Metrics

Metrics for grading the success of an MES system are varied. The

strongest measure of success is direct time savings. Time is shaved off many

activities including data entry, prioritization, decrease in rework, and decreased

need for physical communication among many others. The best method of

quantifying such improvements is through time studies. Each operation will be

timed once MES is implemented and a cost will be totaled for hours of labor

saved. Time savings generally has the greatest monetary value due to the fact

that it is comprised of numerous benefits from MES implementation.

51

Increased efficiencies such as adherence to production schedule,

preemptive solution of resource or capacity shortages, and higher quality lead to

increased throughput. This too will be quantified. The company has in place a

clear understanding of current production volume. With MES implemented

before and after volumes will be compared and quantified in dollars. This

company will show higher revenue due to increased capacity now able to fulfill

previously unfulfilled demand.

Another major factor in gauging the success of MES is examination of

lead times. MES implementation provides for more streamlined operation and a

clear understanding of lead times. With successful implementation this company

will be able to fully comprehend the reduction of lead times provided by the

improved control of the manufacturing environment.

Decreased work in progress forms another quantifiable cost savings. With

vastly improved control and visibility on the shop floor inventory levels can be

safely reduced. Lower inventory levels bring lower carrying costs. Funds

previously tied up in inventory or spent on storage, record keeping,

obsolescence, etc. can be used to reinvest in the companies continued growth.

Overall, the pilot program will provide drastically decreased operating

expenses. Benefits of implementing MES go beyond operating costs. Increased

levels of quality, serialization, responsiveness, communication, etc. will position

the company more aggressively as they bid for contracts. Improved

communication between modules under the ERP umbrella provide for continued

feedback constantly updating forecasting systems with actuals. Such indirect

benefits are to be examined and eventually realized on a longer-term scale.

52

Chapter 7 - Conclusion

This master’s thesis presents a well-defined systematic planning approach

to successful MES implementation. The strengths of MES are presented as well

as the emerging trends within the technology. Explained through integration with

the enterprise resource system, current options are explored and value

propositions described. System aspects, connections, and operation are defined

and used to identify specific inputs as well as data flow. Issues surrounding

implementation are also explored. Ultimately, a 14 stage planning tool/road map

verbally and graphically depicts the required path for implementation.

MES proves applicable to numerous manufacturing instances regardless

of size, industry, or manufacturing environment. Companies stand to realize an

attractive cost to benefit ratio upon implementation. With the 14 stage systematic

planning approach to successful MES implementation proposed, the average

small to medium sized company is armed with sufficient knowledge of the

implementation process to achieve success. Overall, the benefits provided by

implementing MES, as demonstrated in this thesis, provide sufficient evidence for

its consideration. MES proves its strength in the world of information systems,

and will soon be mandatory in highly competitive manufacturing industries.

53

Bibliography

Baljet, P. (1999). Manufacturing Execution System: Manufacturing process Improvement through plant wide visibility with MES. Proceedings of the Technical Program, 2. 1078-1083

Bal, M., Hashemipour, M.(2011). Implementation of holonic scheduling and

control in flow-line manufacturing systems. Production Planning and Control: The management of Operations, 22:2, 108-123

Bo, L., Zhenghang, C., & Ying, C. (2004, August). Research on reconfigurable

manufacturing execution system. In Intelligent Mechatronics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. 2004 International Conference on (pp. 157-161). IEEE.

Broner Metals Solutions Ltd. (2004, January). Integration of MES with Planning &

Scheduling Solutions. http://www.bronermetals.com/documents/ white_papers_ articles/Integrated_MES_%20with_APS.pdf

Chen, K. Y. (2006, January). Performance measurement of implementing

manufacturing execution system. In Materials science forum (Vol. 505, pp. 1117-1122).

Cheng, F. T., Chang, C. F., & Wu, S. L. (2004). Development of holonic

manufacturing execution systems. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, 15(2), 253-267.

Cheng, F. T., Shen, E., Deng, J. Y., & Nguyen, K. (1999). Development of a

system framework for the computer-integrated manufacturing execution system: a distributed object-oriented approach. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 12(5), 384-402.

Choi, B. K., & Kim, B. H. (2002). MES (manufacturing execution system)

architecture for FMS compatible to ERP (enterprise planning system).International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 15(3), 274-284.

Cottyn, J., Van Landeghem, H., Stockman, K., & Derammalaere, S.(2011). The

role of a manufacturing execution system during a lean improvement project. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 1-10

Cottyn, J., Van Landeghem, H., Stockman, K., & Derammalaere, S.(2010) A

Method to Align a Manufacturing Execution System with Lean Objectives. Internal Journal of Production Research, 1-31

54

Functionalities, M. E. S. (1997). MRP to MES Data Flow Possibilities. MESA International.

Huang, D., Mingzhou, L. (2012) Design and implementation of MES for

automobile main gear reducer assembly line. Advanced Materials Research, 468-471, 111-114

Hwang, Y. D. (2006). The practices of integrating manufacturing execution

systems and Six Sigma methodology. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 31(1-2), 145-154.

Kletti, J. (2007). Manufacturing Execution Systems-MES. Springer. Li, F (2012).Study of Multi-Agent Integratable MES Model. Advanced Materials

Researh, 366. 268-271 Li, Z. H., Fan, Y., & Chen, R. L. (2006). Research and Implementation of

Reconfigurable Component-based Manufacturing Execution System. Computer Engineering, 32(11), 111-113.

Liu, W., Chua, T. J. (2002).APS, ERP, and MES systems integration for

Semiconductor Backend Assembly. Seventh International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics, and Vision, 1403-1408

Louis, J. P., & Alpar, P. (2007). Flexible Production Control‐A Framework to Integrate ERP with Manufacturing Execution Systems. In Proceedings of European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems 2007 (EMCIS2007).

“Manufacturing Execution System (MES) Market”.(Feburary 2012).Retrieved

April 29, 2013, from http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/ manufacturing-execution-systems-mes-market-536.html

McClellan, M. (1997). Applying Manufacturing Execution Systems. Boca Raton,

Florida: St. Lucie Press Moser, J., & Christoph, R. (1987). Management expert systems (MES): a

framework for development and implementation. Information processing & management, 23(1), 17-23.

Pereira, C., Carro, L.(2007) Distributed real-time embedded systems: Recent

advances, future trends, and their impact on manufacturing plant control. Annual Reviews in Control, 31, 81-92

55

Qiu, R. G., & Zhou, M. (2004). Mighty MESs; state-of-the-art and future manufacturing execution systems. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE,11(1), 19-25.

Valckenaers, P., & Van Brussel, H. (2005). Holonic manufacturing execution systems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 54(1), 427-432.

Zhong, R.Y., Huang, G., Dai, Q., Qu, T., Hu, G. (2011). RFID enabled real-time MES for discrete manufacturing. International Confrence on Networking, Sensing, and Control, IEEE, 311-316